Let's clear some stuff up first. The fire was in December 2004 which was before the recall. They couldn't have returned the power supply because there was no recall yet. Also, they claimed the Xbox 360 caused the fire. Wow. They must be in Microsoft's good book to get the system 11 months before it came out. Some friends they are turning their back on Microsoft like that. Finally, what were the parents doing while the Xbox was smoking? I didn't own an original Xbox so I don't know much about this problem but from what I've read the Xbox started to smoke before it caught on fire. Well what were the parents doing while the Xbox was smoking? Out partying? Sounds like some good parents, leaving an infant home alone. Even if they went to the grocery store, they still left the baby home alone. Right? Now since I don't know all the details, they could have been sleeping. Well aren't babies usually located pretty close to the parents rooms, if not in the room itself? And if a fire was started and it woke you, wouldn't the first thing you'd do is get your baby and run out? The parents obviously had time to get the baby if they got out, that is if the baby was located near them, and if it wasn't, why not? The baby could have gotten sick in the night and started crying. Would the parents know about it? No, because the baby wasn't near them. And if they were sleeping, why would the "Xbox 360" be turned on? There are so many problems with this I could go on and on, but I'm gonna stop. Just one more thing, why did the parents wait so long to file a lawsuit? The fire was in 2004 and the first I heard of it was in 2007.
You have got it exactly right. The fire was before the XBox power cable recalls, so Microsoft is still on the hook. Also, most people who I know leave their consoles on overnight if they are playing at game, want to pause it, and restart from where they left off the next day. I personally have done that. Third, the recall specifically stated that EVEN WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS NOT TURNED ON..... it could still catch fire and burn! I still have the letter, and I could cut and paste from it straight onto here exactly what they said, were I not lazy.
There is one thing I have to take issue with: not everyone sleeps with their baby near them. My friends, most of them, have their baby in a totally different room, sometimes three or four rooms away from them, so that they can sleep without Junior or Janet's wailing waking them up at obscene hours. I know, it sounds cruel.... but most babies wake up for no reason in the middle of the night, and you just have to learn to ignore them if you have fed, changed and swaddled them.
If you had read the original article that was linked, you would have read that they specifically cited the Xbox 360 as the console that caused the fire.
Uh, you might want to click that link in the story and read the original story. The family was claiming the XBox 360 caused the fire, not the original XBox.
Since everyone else here is making assumptions, I'll throw one out that no one has mentioned.
Why did they wait so long to sue?
The plaintiffs (the dead baby's parents) probably tried to settle the case before it was filed in court. I suspect they went to arbitration and won. Microsoft, like all other defendants, who go to a non-binding arbitration have a right to appeal an unfavorable decision. If that happened maybe that is why the plaintiffs filed suit when they did. Perhaps they TRIED to settle with Microsoft but Microsoft's pig-headeness and concern to protect it's "good name" prevented them from stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility.
I work in a law office. I see this crap all the time. Big corporations spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (of their shareholder's money nonetheless), drag a case on and on for years, get to court and lose. Microsoft is potentially headed down that same road. However, if they get scared the night before trial (and even during the trial) they can offer to settle. And guess what, that settlement will be CONFIDENTIAL and none of us will know the outcome.
Why do so many people concern themselves with the welfare of the billion dollar corporation and condemn the people who bring the lawsuit? Especially when you don't know ANY of the pertinent facts? You have no idea what went wrong here. You do not know the family. You do not know why the fire started or whether it was an actual design defect. Oh no, you don't want to rely on facts... you just jump the gun and assume the plaintiffs are seeking to strike it rich. I hardly doubt it. You lose a baby of yours to Bill Gates' design defect, will you be so forgiving to the giant corporation?
Oh and the little old lady that won the millionaire dollar verdict after being burned by scolding hot coffee at McDonalds had 3rd degree burns on her private parts and had to undergo numerous skin grafts. I think she was fairly compensated. She wasn't the gold digger or opportunist the newspapers made her out to be. If you burned your privates with 400 degree coffee you'd be looking for a lawyer too.
As for the ambulance chasers calling looking for business. That is unethical and is not allowed in hawaii. i would be very suprised if that was allowed anywhere. In fact, an attorney could be disbarred for those tactics if caught.
400 degree coffee you say? Most of us don't get water to go much hotter than around 212 degrees. It was actually somewhere around 180 degrees, which McDonalds did because people tended to buy the coffee and then take it to the office to drink. The case was not clear cut case where McDonalds was obviously at fault.
With regards to spending "hundreds of thousands of dollars of shareholder's money no less" to delay a lawsuit, that's called "fiduciary responsibility". It may cost hundreds of thousands to fight the lawsuit, but it could easily cost millions in sales if they get swarmed with bad publicity. They're a business - they don't spend money on something that they don't think will save or earn them more money in the long term.
Finally, people are condemning the people suing because their facts don't pan out - they claim an XBox 360 started the fire... 11 months before it was available for sale. If they're so chummy with MS that they got a 360 that early, then I'd think Microsoft would be a lot less unwilling to just settle.
This reply is not directed towards any one particular poster.
What were the parents doing, as if it mattered? Just in case you want to know since this has become a topic of interest—I’ve included a link to the original newspaper story about the infants’ death published 3 day after the incident.
Was it the parents fault? Was it faulty wiring? Was it the xbox? Did the parents have a modded xbox that just happened to malfunction while plugged into a faulty outlet that just by chance was somewhere near the Childs sleeping area?
This was simply a tragedy that not one person that’s posted on this article has any clue about regarding the facts in this particular case--including myself.
Furthermore, like it or not, both parties to this case have the right to not only accuse the other of wrong doing, but to vigorously defend themselves against the others charges. That same freedom is what allows all of us to freely agree or disagree with not only each other, but with the actions taken in this case by all involved.
Until we know all the facts in this particular case, both parties are free of wrongful doing.
The X-Fi3 keeps with the company's commitment to audio fidelity, thanks to the apt-X codec, which supposedly offers audio quality similar to a wired connection when streaming. On that front, the device also handles FLAC files.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Let's clear some stuff up first. The fire was in December 2004 which was before the recall. They couldn't have returned the power supply because there was no recall yet. Also, they claimed the Xbox 360 caused the fire. Wow. They must be in Microsoft's good book to get the system 11 months before it came out. Some friends they are turning their back on Microsoft like that. Finally, what were the parents doing while the Xbox was smoking? I didn't own an original Xbox so I don't know much about this problem but from what I've read the Xbox started to smoke before it caught on fire. Well what were the parents doing while the Xbox was smoking? Out partying? Sounds like some good parents, leaving an infant home alone. Even if they went to the grocery store, they still left the baby home alone. Right? Now since I don't know all the details, they could have been sleeping. Well aren't babies usually located pretty close to the parents rooms, if not in the room itself? And if a fire was started and it woke you, wouldn't the first thing you'd do is get your baby and run out? The parents obviously had time to get the baby if they got out, that is if the baby was located near them, and if it wasn't, why not? The baby could have gotten sick in the night and started crying. Would the parents know about it? No, because the baby wasn't near them. And if they were sleeping, why would the "Xbox 360" be turned on? There are so many problems with this I could go on and on, but I'm gonna stop. Just one more thing, why did the parents wait so long to file a lawsuit? The fire was in 2004 and the first I heard of it was in 2007.
You have got it exactly right. The fire was before the XBox power cable recalls, so Microsoft is still on the hook. Also, most people who I know leave their consoles on overnight if they are playing at game, want to pause it, and restart from where they left off the next day. I personally have done that.
Third, the recall specifically stated that EVEN WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS NOT TURNED ON..... it could still catch fire and burn! I still have the letter, and I could cut and paste from it straight onto here exactly what they said, were I not lazy.
There is one thing I have to take issue with: not everyone sleeps with their baby near them. My friends, most of them, have their baby in a totally different room, sometimes three or four rooms away from them, so that they can sleep without Junior or Janet's wailing waking them up at obscene hours.
I know, it sounds cruel.... but most babies wake up for no reason in the middle of the night, and you just have to learn to ignore them if you have fed, changed and swaddled them.
uh, dude, it was the original Xbox. it had known problems with the power cord since 2002. you know guys, there WAS life before the 360.
@ James.
If you had read the original article that was linked, you would have read that they specifically cited the Xbox 360 as the console that caused the fire.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/24/microsoft-wal-mart-sued-over-babys-death/
I linked in case you didn't know an article was linked. Read it. :)
@james
Uh, you might want to click that link in the story and read the original story. The family was claiming the XBox 360 caused the fire, not the original XBox.
Since everyone else here is making assumptions, I'll throw one out that no one has mentioned.
Why did they wait so long to sue?
The plaintiffs (the dead baby's parents) probably tried to settle the case before it was filed in court. I suspect they went to arbitration and won. Microsoft, like all other defendants, who go to a non-binding arbitration have a right to appeal an unfavorable decision. If that happened maybe that is why the plaintiffs filed suit when they did. Perhaps they TRIED to settle with Microsoft but Microsoft's pig-headeness and concern to protect it's "good name" prevented them from stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility.
I work in a law office. I see this crap all the time. Big corporations spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (of their shareholder's money nonetheless), drag a case on and on for years, get to court and lose. Microsoft is potentially headed down that same road. However, if they get scared the night before trial (and even during the trial) they can offer to settle. And guess what, that settlement will be CONFIDENTIAL and none of us will know the outcome.
Why do so many people concern themselves with the welfare of the billion dollar corporation and condemn the people who bring the lawsuit? Especially when you don't know ANY of the pertinent facts? You have no idea what went wrong here. You do not know the family. You do not know why the fire started or whether it was an actual design defect. Oh no, you don't want to rely on facts... you just jump the gun and assume the plaintiffs are seeking to strike it rich. I hardly doubt it. You lose a baby of yours to Bill Gates' design defect, will you be so forgiving to the giant corporation?
Oh and the little old lady that won the millionaire dollar verdict after being burned by scolding hot coffee at McDonalds had 3rd degree burns on her private parts and had to undergo numerous skin grafts. I think she was fairly compensated. She wasn't the gold digger or opportunist the newspapers made her out to be. If you burned your privates with 400 degree coffee you'd be looking for a lawyer too.
As for the ambulance chasers calling looking for business. That is unethical and is not allowed in hawaii. i would be very suprised if that was allowed anywhere. In fact, an attorney could be disbarred for those tactics if caught.
400 degree coffee you say? Most of us don't get water to go much hotter than around 212 degrees. It was actually somewhere around 180 degrees, which McDonalds did because people tended to buy the coffee and then take it to the office to drink. The case was not clear cut case where McDonalds was obviously at fault.
With regards to spending "hundreds of thousands of dollars of shareholder's money no less" to delay a lawsuit, that's called "fiduciary responsibility". It may cost hundreds of thousands to fight the lawsuit, but it could easily cost millions in sales if they get swarmed with bad publicity. They're a business - they don't spend money on something that they don't think will save or earn them more money in the long term.
Finally, people are condemning the people suing because their facts don't pan out - they claim an XBox 360 started the fire... 11 months before it was available for sale. If they're so chummy with MS that they got a 360 that early, then I'd think Microsoft would be a lot less unwilling to just settle.
This reply is not directed towards any one particular poster.
What were the parents doing, as if it mattered? Just in case you want to know since this has become a topic of interest—I’ve included a link to the original newspaper story about the infants’ death published 3 day after the incident.
Was it the parents fault? Was it faulty wiring? Was it the xbox? Did the parents have a modded xbox that just happened to malfunction while plugged into a faulty outlet that just by chance was somewhere near the Childs sleeping area?
This was simply a tragedy that not one person that’s posted on this article has any clue about regarding the facts in this particular case--including myself.
Furthermore, like it or not, both parties to this case have the right to not only accuse the other of wrong doing, but to vigorously defend themselves against the others charges. That same freedom is what allows all of us to freely agree or disagree with not only each other, but with the actions taken in this case by all involved.
Until we know all the facts in this particular case, both parties are free of wrongful doing.
Here’s the link to the original story about the fire and death:
http://www.journalpilot.com/articles/2004/12/29/news/news1.txt